Seems kind of a stupid way for the US to get the oil. I don't think it is
standard operating procedure to let another nation's oil company control the
oil you supposedly fought for.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Ruest [mailto:pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 4:49 AM
>To: glenn.morton@btinternet.com; asa@calvin.edu>Subject: Iraq war and oil
>
>
>
>Hi, Glenn
>
>some time ago, you expressed your strong conviction that oil was not and
>could not be a major motive for the USA to wage the Iraq war - and I
>gladly accepted this. So what should we think about the following?
>
>Under the headline, "So then 'a war for oil' after all?", "Der Bund",
>one of the leading daylies in Bern, Switzerland, wrote on 7th June (I
>translate the end of the article):
>
>"... these days, Wolfowitz literally poured more oil into the fire. At a
>Asian security summit in Singapore, he declared last weekend that oil
>had been the main reason for the war against Iraq. 'The most important
>difference between North Korea and Iraq is that in Iraq we had no other
>choice, for commercial reasons. The country is floating on a sea of
>oil.' Wolfowitz's most recent disclosures followed shortly after a
>provocative interview with the magazine 'Vanity Fair'. There, he had
>said that, for reasons which have much to do with governmental
>bureaucracy, one had chosen the war motive which all could accept:
>weapons of mass destruction."
>
>Is this another case of badly distorted information by the media, which
>is all too rampant here in Switzerland (and Europe in general, I
>suspect)?
>
>Best,
>Peter
>
>--
>Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
><pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
>"..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)